I’m unsure if I agree or not. I think this could benefit from a bit of clarification on the “why this needs to be retired” parts.
For the first slogan, it seems like you’re saying that this is not a complete argument for longtermism—just because the future is big doesn’t mean its tractable, or neglected, or valuable at the margin. I agree that it’s not a complete argument, and if I saw someone framing it that way I would object. But I don’t think that means we need to retire the phrase unless we see it being constantly used as a strawman or something? It’s not complete, but it’s a quick way to summarize a big part of the argument.
For the second one, it sounds like you’re saying this is misleading—it doesn’t accurately represent the work being done, which is mostly on lock-in events, not affecting the long-term future. This is true, but it takes only one extra sentence to say “but this is hard so in practice we focus on lock-in”. It’s a quick way to summarize the philosophical motivations, but does seem pretty detached from practice.
I think my takeaway from thinking thru this comment is this:
Longtermism is a complicated argument with a lot of separate pieces
We have slogans that summarize some of those pieces and leave out others
Those slogans are useful in a high-context environment, but can be misleading for those that don’t already know all the context they implicitly rely on
But I don’t think that means we need to retire the phrase unless we see it being constantly used as a strawman or something? It’s not complete, but it’s a quick way to summarize a big part of the argument.
I do often see it used as an argument for longtermism, without reference to tractability.
This is true, but it takes only one extra sentence to say “but this is hard so in practice we focus on lock-in”.
So: “What matters most about our actions is their very long term effects, but this is hard so in practice we focus on lock-in”. But why bother making the claim about our actions in general? It seems like an attempt to make a grand theory where it’s not warranted.
I’m unsure if I agree or not. I think this could benefit from a bit of clarification on the “why this needs to be retired” parts.
For the first slogan, it seems like you’re saying that this is not a complete argument for longtermism—just because the future is big doesn’t mean its tractable, or neglected, or valuable at the margin. I agree that it’s not a complete argument, and if I saw someone framing it that way I would object. But I don’t think that means we need to retire the phrase unless we see it being constantly used as a strawman or something? It’s not complete, but it’s a quick way to summarize a big part of the argument.
For the second one, it sounds like you’re saying this is misleading—it doesn’t accurately represent the work being done, which is mostly on lock-in events, not affecting the long-term future. This is true, but it takes only one extra sentence to say “but this is hard so in practice we focus on lock-in”. It’s a quick way to summarize the philosophical motivations, but does seem pretty detached from practice.
I think my takeaway from thinking thru this comment is this:
Longtermism is a complicated argument with a lot of separate pieces
We have slogans that summarize some of those pieces and leave out others
Those slogans are useful in a high-context environment, but can be misleading for those that don’t already know all the context they implicitly rely on
I do often see it used as an argument for longtermism, without reference to tractability.
So: “What matters most about our actions is their very long term effects, but this is hard so in practice we focus on lock-in”.
But why bother making the claim about our actions in general? It seems like an attempt to make a grand theory where it’s not warranted.